The Institute of Fundraising’s upcoming meeting on face-to-face fundraising is long overdue and the absence of the PFRA may make it a more productive endeavour, says former PFRA chair Michael Naidu.

I read with interest that the Institute of Fundraising is planning to hold a fundraising directors-only meeting about the current state of face-to-face fundraising. As the former chair of the PFRA and a long-time advocate of face-to-face fundraising, I wholeheartedly support this plan and urge the directors of fundraising who invest heavily in the medium to participate and be honest and open (in a closed environment of course) about their current activity and future plans.

It is a shame that the Institute has waited so long to call such a meeting. Back in August 2010, Newsnight ran a feature on face-to-face fundraising which focused heavily on the payment of fundraisers and outsourcing to agencies. The response from the fundraising sector was a deafening silence and the task of justifying face-to-face fundraising was done by  a non-fundraising representative from the British Heart Foundation, Betty McBride, director of communications, who stepped up to face Jeremy Paxman’s aggressive and misguided questioning.

This failure of the big charity consumers of face-to-face to be open and transparent has been going on for years (with a few exceptions, notably Alan Gosschalk, advocate of face-to-face and founder of ImpACT) and has had a detrimental effect on both the public image of face-to-face fundraising and the long-term results achieved by charities. The public by and large still believe that charities should be run by volunteers and many potentially brilliant fundraisers are turned off the idea of representing charities on the street and doorstep because of the misinformation prevalent. Not to mention those that stop fundraising because they are physically and mentally abused by the public on a daily basis. Who would be a chugger eh? Well hopefully loads of people because demand for sign-ups is ever-increasing.

Face-to-face is demand-led

And we should remember that face-to-face fundraising, like direct mail, telephone etc, is demand-led. There would be no “evil agencies” if charities did not demand donors and there would be much less poor practice if charities recognised their responsibilities. I am constantly shocked (but no longer surprised) when I hear stories about the arms-length attitude of many charities. Little thought, planning or budget is given to training (and retraining) of fundraisers and the materials and the “ask” are rarely engaging or interesting. Many charities continue to delegate too much responsibility agencies. To draw a comparison, how many charities would allow an agency to develop a DM pack, write the copy, pick the images, segment the data and send out the pack without any input from the charity? Very few I hope, but this happens all the time with face-to-face fundraising.

So do the PFRA and the FRSB need to be present at the meeting? I don’t think this is necessary and those attending may feel more comfortable to be honest about their current activity if the regulatory bodies are not in the room. But it would be useful for everyone if Peter Lewis, chief executive of the Institute of Fundraising, would give some clarity about what the aims and objectives of the meeting are and share the outcomes and action points with the sector after the meeting.

The meeting is due to take place shortly after Lord Hodgson reports back his findings and plans around the public collections regime as part of the Charities Act review and I suspect he will be expecting collaborative, sector-wide solutions to issues with public fundraising. These solutions cannot be developed by an exclusive groups of fundraising directors behind closed doors and will require charities to be more accountable and transparent about their fundraising, something we talk a lot about but rarely do.